Re: shlwapi: optimise path functions

[Alexandre Julliard]

"Dimitrie O. Paun"  writes:
> Well, I'm not sure this is worth doing. First off, we're not fixing any
> app that makes use of CharNext{A,W}(). Second, why is your static method
> any faster than the real CharNextA()? Third, it's not correct to replace
> CharNextW() with an array increment. While it is true that currently our
> CharNextW() simply does the same thing, it should be fixed in the long
> run to properly deal with Unicode Surrogate Pairs:

While that's true in general, for the path functions it doesn't really
matter since surrogates will never be path separators, so getting rid
of CharNextW in that case is OK. CharNextA is another story however...